Toll-Free: (888) 234-5758
Phone: (954) 523-3870
Disabilities: Hypertension and diabetes mellitus
Notice of Decision: Fully Favorable
Administrative Law Judge: Antonio Acevedo Torres
Office of Disability Adjudication & Review (ODAR): Miami-Dade & Monroe County, Florida (including the Florida Keys (Key West))
Return to page 1 of decision
6. The claimant is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565 and 416.965).
The demands of the claimant's past relevant work exceed the residual functional capacity.
7. The claimant was an individual of advanced age on the established disability onset date (20 CFR 404.1563 and 416.963).
8. The claimant has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in English (20 CFR 404.1564 and 416.964).
9. Transferability of job skills is not an issue in this case because the claimant's past relevant work is unskilled (20 CFR 404.1568 and 416.968).
10. Considering the claimant's age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are no jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform (20 CFR 404.1560(c), 404.1566, 416.960(c), and 416.966).
In determining whether a successful adjustment to other work can be made, the undersigned must consider the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience in conjunction with the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2.
If the claimant can perform all or substantially all of the exertional demands at a given level of exertion, the medical-vocational rules direct a conclusion of either "disabled" or "not disabled" depending upon the claimant's specific vocational profile (SSR 83-11).
Based on a residual functional capacity for the full range of light work, considering the claimant's age, education, and work experience, a finding of "disabled" is directed by Medical-Vocational Rule 202.04.
11. The claimant has been under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act since October 16, 2007, the amended alleged onset date of disability (20 CFR 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).
DECISION
Based on the application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits filed on September 15, 2005, the claimant has been disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security Act since October 16, 2007.
Based on the application for supplemental security income filed on September 15, 2005, the claimant has been disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act since October 16, 2007.
The component of the Social Security Administration responsible for authorizing supplemental security income will advise the claimant regarding the non-disability requirements for these payments, and if eligible, the amount and the months for which payment will be made.
Antonio Acevedo Torres
Administrative Law Judge
Date: DEC 29, 2008
Return to Case Results
Contact us for a FREE evaluation of your case
*The Law Office of LaVan & Neidenberg represents disabled people across the nation. Our firm advertises on television in: Miami-Dade County, Florida; Broward County, Florida; Palm Beach County, Florida; Fulton County, Georgia; and DeKalb County, Georgia. Click here to watch a television commercial.